Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Author Related

Posts that relate in some way to my books. Excludes administrative posts and most reviews of other people’s books.

  • An Evangelist for Evolution

    The Rev. Michael Dowd is preaching a surprising message: Evolution is real and science points to the existence of God. (Source: .)

    Rev. Dowd also joins the growing group who acknowledge that accepting evolution does impact one’s theology in some ways. I find his specific take interesting.

    One theme that seems to get someone entry into Christian venues is the idea that science can help support faith. Those who say, “Evolution is true, live with it” don’t get so much of a hearing. Unfortunately, while I believe that scientific evidence can be seen as consistent with the existence of God, I see nothing that forces or drives the conclusion that there truly is a God. Often the evidence makes one drop some definition of God that one had held before.

    In a comment to a previous post Larry B. writes:

    In the same (but different) way, I honestly feel that evolution for a lot of people has unmoored more than a few christians from their foundations.

    (I don’t want to copy the whole comment here, but it is worthwhile reading the entire context.)

    I agree with this statement, but would ask what is the proper response? If people have faith that God will heal everyone for whom prayer is offered, they will very possibly be “unmoored” from that faith when reality doesn’t accord with their expectations. In the case of evolution, I suggest that there is more education needed amongst Christians about the implications and possibilities, so that people can make intelligent decisions.

    I do think it is important to note the real challenges to theology, and to welcome, rather than fear questions. Christianity is ultimately doomed if it cannot find a more friendly way to co-exist with challenges. There’s the “fall over and play dead” option and the “circle the wagons option.” We need more folks in the “let’s have fun with this” camp!

    Or at least that’s my take on it.

  • God is not that Vulnerable

    I had a short conversation with a friend and client the other day and I thought I’d share the key point. This man is a professional with a substantial scientific education, and also a devout Christian. On his desk was the book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. That got us chatting about evolution, and how so many people were bothered by it. He wasn’t even aware that Dawkins was an atheist, nor did he care.

    He said something very interesting that would have taken me several convoluted paragraphs to get across. Referring to those who feel their faith threatened by evolution he said, “God is not that vulnerable.”

    Hmmm! That works for me.

  • Dynamically Wrong? Exodus 24:12 (NLT)

    Exodus 24:12 in the NLT reads:

    And the LORD said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain. Stay there while I give you the tablets of stone that I have inscribed with my instructions and commands. Then you will teach the people from them.

    The phrase I’m interested in here is “stay there while.” That may seem like an odd fragment, but consider the NRSV: “and wait there.” What’s the difference? I might not have noticed if I hadn’t written a devotional based on the NRSV translation. Now when I first read the NRSV of this verse, I had to go back to the Hebrew and check, because “wait” looked wrong to me. In Hebrew it reads simply “and be there.” So the reason could be any number of things. But after reading the context a bit, I decided the NRSV had the idea right. Moses was to go up into the mountain and wait for the Lord. If that is the case, the NLT is clear and natural, but misses the point just a bit.

    If you read further you will see that after Moses goes up into the mountain he does, in fact, have to wait. He does so for six days, and then on the seventh day he is called into the cloud. I think the best connection in the context for the phrase “be there” is to that waiting time, and thus the NRSV is the better translation in this case.

    (Before someone misunderstands, the NRSV and NLT are both translations that I commend highly. There will always be points of disagreement in any translation, so this shouldn’t be taken as an “unendorsement” of the NLT. It’s just a single case where I agree with one excellent translation over another.)

  • Being a Christian Witness

    I wrote some more thoughts for my wife’s devotional list on the same topic as my post Silent Witness. We are works in progress. Imperfection is a fact, but it shouldn’t be an excuse.

  • Theme for the First Sunday of Lent

    Not too surprisingly, it’s not hard to find a common theme through the lectionary passages for February 10. This makes a second week in a row, as the Transfiguration texts also displayed many common themes.

    The texts are:

    Genesis 2:15-17 (the command about the tree in the midst of the garden), 3:1-7 (Temptation and Fall). Putting these two texts together brings up some interesting possibilities in looking at the command and how it was shaped in the discussion with the snake. I also found a note in The Jewish Study Bible that mentions the difference in the Genesis 1 view of the first couple (dominion) and the view in chapters 2 and 3 where they are seeking dominion, to be like gods.

    In this connection I have mentioned previously that the priestly source (P) in Genesis doesn’t mention the fall directly until Genesis 6:11, if that is indeed a reference. Evil appears in the world without the detailed story. One could ask whether there are two ways of viewing the fall, one involving a single incident, and one involving a slower deterioration. Since we have no hint of any priestly comment on the arrival of sin, we don’t know, but it’s interesting to read the stories separately.

    Turning to the gospel (Matthew 4:1-11) next, because of its theme, we have the temptation of Jesus. The Spirit takes Jesus into the desert where he is tempted. If you combine the context of Matthew, in which Jesus comes from the “high” of his baptism and moves on to the “low” of the temptation with last week’s transfiguration texts which are a high heading into the crucifixion, there is a theme of the mountaintop experience followed by the time of testing. One could easily see the mountaintop as the preparation for the valley.

    What should we take from the mountaintop? That is the question for most of us. We attend various retreats and have a wonderful time spiritually, but then we get home and the world crashes back in and we lose the high. I think Jesus took a sense of peace and a sense of his Father’s approval and presence with him. That is something to strive for.

    Sin and redemption are the focus of Romans 5:12-19. If one preached or taught from this passage, the focus can be on the plan of redemption, the one man Jesus who undoes the work of the enemy over millenia.

    Psalm 32 makes it personal. It isn’t about the world, or long term plans. It’s about individual people and their sin. What can be done about it? That’s where you bring in the broad sweep. There is a way for God to forgive sin, so we can confess and expect to be forgiven.

  • Speaking from God – 2 Peter 1:16-21

    This passage in 2 Peter is one of the most commonly cited in discussions of Biblical inspiration, along with 2 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 4:12 and Psalm 12:6. One of the interesting things that I notice about them all is that they are often used as though they obviously say something that, on closer examination, they don’t actually say.

    In fact, they are quoted in support of just about every view of inspiration that there is, and frequently supporters of one view or another simply quote these passages and then look expectantly at you, expecting you to acknowledge that the text completely states their doctrine. But no single text does, and it would be difficult for one to do so by itself. Even more, however, we need to look at how prophecy functioned in practice in scripture when we want to work out the details, rather than looking for doctrinal statements and then assuming that it works according to our interpretation of those statements.

    That general statement of method, of course, requires further discussion, and I do discuss the method extensively in my book When People Speak for God. Here, I simply want to look at this text from that point of view. The key question here is what does Peter (or the pseudonymous author of 2 Peter, if it was not written by the apostle himself) wish to convey? In other words, why is he talking about prophecy here? We can see rather immediately that his point is not to expound a doctrine of prophecy, but what is he doing?

    As an aside, let me note that the authorship of 2 Peter would be problematic under the doctrine of inerrancy. I have left the possibility that this is a pseudonymous letter rather than written by the apostle himself, yet if one holds the doctrine of inerrancy, this very passage would be in error, since it relies on the notion of eyewitnesses, and specifically an eyewitness who was on the mount of transfiguration. No person other than Peter, amongst potential authors of the book, suits that text.

    The key here is the reliability of the prophetic word in general, but more specifically about Jesus Christ. To restate this in a slightly less convoluted way, Peter is saying that he saw the prophecies about the coming Messiah fulfilled before his very eyes in Jesus. In particular, I believe, he’s invoking Exodus 24 and the image of Moses on the mountain as the type which met its antitype in the transfiguration. Because of this reliable connection, established by eyewitness testimony–that of the writer–the readers do well to pay attention to the prophetic word as it comes through those apostles and their successors.

    There are two subtexts to this. First, scripture does not come by human will. Second, scripture is not the result of, or the property of individual speakers of interpreters. I think these are critical things for us to notice today. One of the things I emphasize in my method of Bible study is sharing, and sharing in turn simply means that you do your Bible study in community. There is, of course, always a tension between one’s individual opinions and the community, but as long as there is contact, there is an additional measure of safety. The individual who goes off in a corner and feels unable to, or is unwilling to express his views is in much graver danger of error.

    To back this up a bit, here is my draft translation and notes. You will, of course, want to read other translations and compare. When one is expressing a particular interpretation of a passage, one is more vulnerable than usual to translating according to the interpretation. (Greek transliteration throughout is very loose as I’m not depending on grammatical details.)

    16It was not by relying on cleverly contrived tales that we told you about the power and the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. We witnessed his majesty with our own eyes.

    The key word in this passage is epoptes, referring to an eyewitness in this case. It occurs only here in the New Testament, though it does occur in the LXX a number of times. The term can also refer to an initiate (which might cover the apostle Paul) or to an overseer, though the latter two meanings do not fit the context here. Megaleiotes, used here for “majesty” can refer to things varying from grand to sublime or a combination thereof.

    The combined idea is that those who preached the message had seen the real thing with their own eyes, being allowed to watch Jesus through his ministry.

    17He received glory and honor from God the Father, and a voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved son. I’m well pleased with him.” 18And we heard this very voice coming from heaven, when we were with him on the holy mountain.

    That there was a voice is not quite the focus. That those who preached had heard the voice–that’s the key. They heard God affirm Jesus as His Son.

    19Now we have a more secure prophetic word, and you would do well to attend to it as a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns, and the morning star rises in your hearts.

    The security does not exist in isolation. It is intended to make the believers hold on until the appearance of Christ.

    20Knowing this first, that no prophecy in scripture came as a matter for private understanding.

    “Understanding” could be, and often is translated as “interpretation.” Between verses 20 and 21 scripture is clearly declared outside of realm of the individual and personal, and placed as part of a community operating in the will of God.

    21For no prophecy came by human will, but carried forward by the Holy Spirit human beings spoke [a message] from God. — 2 Peter 1:16-21

    People regularly use this passage to imply some form of verbal dictation, but the Greek simply says “spoke from God” and we must supply the object–what is being spoken. I would argue that the correct object is the message, the more sure word of Jesus come in the flesh and affirmed by God in fulfillment of scripture. This makes no comment on whether words are verbally dictated. A better place to discover the method at that level of detail is to look at actual scriptures. There we will find words that seem to be almost totally the creation of the writer, and also words that are the very words of God.

    Thus people are apparently carried along by the Holy Spirit in many different ways, not just a single one.

  • Silent Witness?

    Laura at Pursuing Holiness is concerned with the idea of a “silent witness,” as accomplished by wearing cheesy buttons. No, she’s not talking about the need to shout, but rather the need to be clear and Biblical in the way in which one witnesses. Her particular target is the AFA’s program of Easter buttons which look much more like a fundraising gambit than a good witnessing idea.

    Christians you encounter might smile and nod approvingly, perhaps wishing they were so bold as to wear a button with an Easter message on it, but non-Christians – unless they are the type of person who’s just looking to pick a fight – will avoid you when you wear this button. Look at it from their perspective. They already (wrongly) think they’re going to have to give up all kinds of fun and freedom in order to be a Christian. Now they’re going to have to wear a cheesy button, too. That’s enticing, all right. They’re afraid that if they become Christians they’ll have to wear a “Look out! I’m a Godbag!” button.

    Just so.

    And in case someone’s out there thinking I just say this because I’m a liberal and don’t believe in witnessing, let me say that I believe very much in witnessing. I believe in good witnessing that reflects well on the Person to whom we bear witness. It seems to me that some people think that witnessing is a convention of Rude and Obnoxious People for Jesus.

    When you take on the name “Christian” or “follower of Jesus” or however you want to say it, you don’t merely have the option of witness. You are a witness. I remember vividly the moment this was engraved in my brain. Some years ago I was under substantial pressure over something at work (I was not working as a Bible teacher at the time!). In the break area I started to cuss the person responsible with every word I had heard. After the incident, a coworker walked up to me and said, “I thought you were a Christian.” He might as well have thrown me up against the wall, and it couldn’t have shocked me any more. Such a shock is very good for the system!

    You are a witness. What type?

  • Abuse of Authority or Church Discipline?

    Someone on the Compuserve Religion Forum has posted a reference to an article about churches starting to try to discipline their congregations.

    I’m not going to try to summarize the article. Suffice it to say that the most extreme example involves a pastor calling the police to arrest a woman for trespassing. Her crime? She was attending church after having been expelled from the fellowship. In her case, the reason was for complaining about, and taking action against the church leadership.

    I have multiple reactions to this. First, while a certain amount of church discipline is suggested in order to maintain some sort of integrity, the place where we have most needed it is precisely where it’s not happening–in the leadership. In fact, some of these cases occur where members are holding the leadership accountable. In fact, I think that there is much too little involvement of the membership in general in actions of the church. I have known of a number of actions by church committees of churches where I’ve been a member that should have been made more public, and members should have complained loudly!

    I once even preached a sermon on the “ministry of complaining,” calling on members to call up the appropriate committee chairs and other leadership and let them know what they thought needed to be done. Such a ministry of complaining, of course, needs to be constructive or else it isn’t a ministry; it’s just complaining.

    But on the other hand there’s a simple point that seems to be missed by many people in these discussions. Church is a voluntary organization. Here in the United States nobody is actually forced to be a church member. There is always a simple solution to the problem of a church that is obnoxious–find another one. I’m certain I could find dozens of churches even in our relatively conservative community that would take in the shunned adulterers and never notice the difference. The complainers might be harder to place! Nonetheless, I would imagine that there is a pastor somewhere within a 20 mile radius who shares their disgust with their own pastor and would be happy to have them.

    The problem with my happy solution is that there are many spiritually vulnerable people, and there are pastors and church leaders who will exploit them. One of the great dangers to individual faith is getting a glimpse of the church organization in action, or more often inaction. An hour or so of church committee can make me want to attend bedside Baptist on a weekly basis. In churches that have been around for a few years there will be members who are entrenched in their positions and who know how to manipulate the system. They are just waiting for a new pastor or a new member who has some innovative ideas so that they can shut them down.

    At the same time (making another hairpin turn in thought) there are numerous churches where people are friendly and non-judgmental. The problem is that many times people have attended a particular church for a very long time and it has changed around them. Finally they find themselves strangers in a church they have attended all their lives. That is an extremely difficult situation, and I sympathize.

    But there is no way to guarantee reasonable and rational behavior on the part of any church organization, and it only gets worse when people feel that they have God’s authority behind them. I don’t see any way to guarantee someone’s safety or comfort in this situation. A private organization, whether religious or not, has a certain right to set its own policies. The only right of the individual member, other than as provided for in the bylaws, is to take their body and their tithe elsewhere.

    I would recommend that when you have a pastor who places a great deal of emphasis on how he cannot be questioned, and the leaders cannot be challenged, you should look for another church. There is a theology around that treats the pastor as “God’s anointed” and makes him above question. That is a dangerous theology and a dangerous practice. A pastor should be held accountable by the membership in all cases, and by the denominational structure in a church that is part of one. Such accountability should be essential.

    While I have many complaints about denominations in general and mine (United Methodist) in particular, there are also many positive things that can be said about the organizational structure. For all the complaints we may have about candidacy and assignments, we generally have less of a problem with pastors decided they are God in their individual churches. We have better trained pastors generally, and when something truly goes wrong, there is someone to go to above your pastor.

  • 1 Corinthians 1:13-16 and Verbal Dictation

    13Has Christ been divided? Surely it wasn’t Paul who was crucified for you, or into Paul’s name that you were baptized! 14I thank God that I didn’t baptize any of you except for Crispus and Gaius, 15So that nobody could say that you were baptized into my name. 16Well, I did baptize the household of Stephanos, and as for the rest, I don’t know whether I baptized anyone else. — 1 Corinthians 1:13-16

    I advocate looking at the Bible to see how it was actually produced rather than producing a theory of how it must have been produced and then imagining that this was what happened. When I read 1 Corinthians 1:13-16, I have to ask myself how one could hold a theory of verbal dictation on this passage. (Any form of verbal inspiration seems a stretch to me.) It’s so human. In fact, one of the things I love about the Bible throughout is how the human character of each of the writers comes through. Complaining Jeremiah, vigorous Paul. Well, now we have forgetful Paul.

    He’s glad he only baptized two people. Oh, sorry, he baptized another family. Hmmm! He’s not sure if he baptized anyone else. Now I don’t want to make fun of Paul, though I suspect during his lifetime that might have been good sport. I like to imagine Luke ribbing Paul from time to time about being a bit over the top. But that passage is the way a human being writing a letter would write, and not the way the omniscient Holy Spirit would write.

    Paul is inspired, but his words are not dictated. At least so it appears to me.

  • Are you Reading the White Space?

    I’m frequently struck by how often we deal with trivia in our Bible study. In some cases we might not call it “trivia” but we certainly are dealing with something other than the main message of the text–the stuff that is in black and white. We imagine what the characters might have said, we fill in the blanks from our own imagination, and sometimes we even become convinced that what we have imagined is actually the text itself.

    Now I’m not against any of these procedures. I even recommend imagining the viewpoint of lesser characters when interpreting stories, for example. I’m also not opposed to studying the details very carefully. I’ve been doing so with 2 Corinthians 5:21, for example. The problem comes when we focus exclusively, or almost exclusively on those elements of the text that are obscure, or things that are not actually specified.

    This hurts us in our spiritual walk in two ways. First, we become obsessed with minor matters. If the Bible writers had regarded these points as of utmost importance, it is likely they would have expressed them more clearly. Often when we are unable to produce an interpretation about which we feel confident, the problem is that we are dealing with something the original writer didn’t consider a key point. Second, however, we can become convinced that all of God’s revelation is obscure and difficult to understand, when in fact the majority of it is not all that mysterious and difficult.

    How do we avoid getting stuck in the white space?

    1. Study larger passages. Rather than taking a single verse, take several. Rather than taking several verses, take a few chapters, or even an entire book.
    2. Include rapid, survey reading in your study. Many people come to the Bible with this special “holy” approach that suggests one can’t skim or speed read. But sometimes skimming is good for an overview before you dig in.
    3. Take breaks from the obscure stuff and study something more straightforward.
    4. Always be aware of tentative conclusions. It’s easy to become quite enamored of your own interpretation when studying on your own.
    5. Lastly, be accountable. Make sure that you have some way to hear objections to your own views and criticism of your approaches. This may mean attending a study group, publishing a blog, sharing in Sunday School, or even hearing a congregation criticize your sermon if you preach.

    There is plenty of obscure stuff to keep you busy, but there is also plenty of clear stuff to keep you steady. Approach them in balance.